Nikoletta Read (also known as “Nikole Read”) v Claudio De Giovanni

Hearing date: 3 February 2026

Approved Judgment

Aidan Eardley KC:

Introduction

This is a claim for libel, malicious falsehood and harassment. The Claimant contends that the Defendants are responsible for blackmail threats, culminating in the malicious publication of false and defamatory statements about her on a website set up for that purpose. This judgment concerns an application for an interim injunction that I heard on Tuesday 3 February 2026.

Procedural history

The claim has got off to a somewhat rocky start procedurally.

On 14 October 2025 the Claimant filed a Claim Form dated 8 October 2025.

On 21 October 2025 the Claimant submitted an application for an urgent without notice injunction (dated 7 October 2025) and it came on before Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson on 23 October 2025 in the Interim Applications Court. He refused the application. The recital to his Order states, among other things, that he did not consider that the matter was sufficiently urgent to require consideration in that Court and that he was not satisfied that the application should be heard without notice.

On 31 October 2025 the Claimant submitted a further urgent, without notice application for an interim injunction. This was considered on the papers by Mrs Justice O'Farrell who made an Order dated 11 November 2025. Among other things, she required the Claimant to serve the Defendants by no later than noon on 13 November 2025 with the Claim Form, Application Notice, draft Order and the evidence relied on by the Claimant. She gave directions for alternative service (via, variously, email, LinkedIn and Whatsapp numbers) and provided that service of the Claim Form was to be deemed to take effect on the date on which it was sent to those various accounts and numbers.

The Claimant complied with O'Farrell J's directions as to service as best she could. However, at that point she had not received a sealed Claim Form back from the Court so she served the unsealed form. She told me that she has subsequently received an issued, sealed Claim Form and I have given directions for that to be served. I did not consider that this irregularity should prevent me from hearing the Claimant's application. The Defendants know the nature of the claim the Claimant is bringing and none of them have taken a point about the lack of a seal on the form they were served with.

No Particulars of Claim have yet been filed or served. I have given directions for this to be done within 14 days.

The Second Defendant acknowledged receipt of the documents served by the Claimant, and filed a Witness Statement dated 17 November 2025 in opposition to the present application. I have not seen any responses or evidence from the other Defendants, though the Claimant told me that she had received an email from the First Defendant in which he denied liability for the website complained of.

The Claimant satisfied me that she had given sufficient notice of the hearing to all the Defendants, in compliance with s12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ( HRA). Only the Second Defendant attended. None of the other Defendants had communicated with the Court to indicate that they would have any difficulty attending and I infer that they have made a conscious decision not to attend. In those circumstances, I decided that it was appropriate to proceed.

The Claimant's evidence

The Claimant relies upon a Witness Statement dated 21 October 2025 and a Supplemental Witness Statement dated 31 October 2025. Both have exhibits. I can summarise her evidence as follows.

The Claimant gives no details about her personal or professional background. She refers to the First Defendant as her friend but does not explain how she came to know him. She says that, in about May 2024, he asked her if she knew anyone who “ might help resolve a technical issue concerning a blocked payment account” and that she responded by agreeing to “ make an introduction to a person I knew socially who had experience with payment platforms”. It is clear that the person referred to is a Mr Farhan. The Claimant does not explain how she came to know Mr Farhan or learn about his business experience. She says that “ I was not involved in any transaction, did not direct their business, and received no payment or benefit. My role was a friendly introduction made in good faith”.

The Claimant says that she was then added to a group Whatsapp Chat consisting of the First and Second Defendants, Mr Farhan and herself. She says that she was added by the Defendants in order to “ discuss unlocking their blocked Stripe account” (I understand Stripe to be an online payment platform). She exhibits a screenshot of Whatsapp exchanges within this group dated 18 May 2024 in which the Second Defendant refers to an earlier telephone call with the Claimant, thanks her for some help she has already provided and asks for help with a problem with Stripe. In submissions, the Claimant confirmed that there had been a phone call. She characterised the Defendants' conduct as dragging her into their own business dealings against her will.

The Claimant continues, “When they mentioned using Mr Farhan's Stripe account to process their funds, I did not support that proposal”. She evidences this by exhibiting another Whatsapp message from the same group chat, this one dated 30 May 2024. It is not easy to understand from the isolated screenshot exhibited, but she says it shows her discouraging the Defendants from using Mr Farhan's account and “pointing out that they already claimed to have contact with the CEO of Stripe Italy and should resolve matters through that channel”.

Next, the Claimant says, a website called “ thyreality.info” was created on around 5 October 2024. It may be that “ThyReality” is the name of a business associated with Mr Farhan, but the Claimant does not explain. She exhibits a single screenshot which is of a statement published on the website under the heading “How We Met Mr. Farhan and ThyReality Ltd”. The unidentified authors then write, “After struggling with Stripe, a mutual friend introduced us to Mr. Farhan, describing him as a young, humble, and professional entrepreneur who could help us….However our friend, who vouched for him, likely didn't know the truth: this man was about to lead us into a scam…”. The Claimant invites the inference that this website and the statement were the work of the Defendants. She relies on it as evidence of their modus operandi, here used against Mr Farhan but which, she says, would soon be used against herself. She also relies on the description of the “mutual friend” as a true reflection of her role in whatever was going on: that of an innocent introducer.

Also on 5 October 2024, the Claimant says that she received several phone calls and messages from Mr Farhan asking her to lend him money, first £50,000 and then “ as much as you can send”. The Claimant declined. She says that, “I later learned that these calls were being monitored by persons connected with the Defendants, and that [the Second Defendant] was present or on the line during the calls”. She does not explain how she learned this (presumably from Mr Farhan, but the basis for his own knowledge is unclear and he has not provided a statement). The Claimant then reports further statements from Mr Farhan to the effect that he was being pressured into transferring money to accounts connected with the Defendants and that “his phone, laptop and bank account were accessed without his consent, and funds were transferred out”. No further details are given other than that, “A third party witness, Jack, was aware of the calls and the circumstances surrounding them”.

At this point in her Witness Statement the Claimant complains that “My private WhatsApp and text conversations with Mr Farhan were viewed, copied and screen-captured, then forwarded to another device and later shown to me and others. The communications were personal and contained private discussions between friends. I had a reasonable expectation that these messages would remain confidential”. The Claimant does not exhibit copies of these messages or describe their contents. Neither does she explain who copied them, or who showed them to herself and others.

The Claimant then refers to Whatsapp messages she received on 8 October 2024 from an unknown number (this is the number whose user is specified as the Third Defendant). She has exhibited what she calls “representative messages”. These messages refer to “ the situation connected to Farhan”. They include lines such as “Should we not hear from you soon, we will have no choice but to bring this situation to public attention, just as we did with Farhan. Our goal is to resolve this amicably, but silence on your part may force us to take alternative measures”, and “There are records of the messages where you not only introduced us to Farhan but also where you were advising him on how to avoid giving our money back… We want to keep this private, but we're not afraid to tell the...